W^.  ■*•'!•.; 


TJ     1g^!^' 


Review  of  the   Protest   end. 
A-npeal  of  Bishop  Doane, 
as   agg-rieved  by  Bishops 
Meade,   Burgess,    and 
irdlvaine;    ajid  of  ^sjrts  of 

his  re-oly  to  the 
Representations  of  Messrs.       ^^ 
Halstead,    Perliins,    Coppuck 
and   G-ill, 


'w.^'Ss:. 


I 


BX5960 
.D63R46 


'.^f* 


m 


,^ 


o^. 


A 


REVIEW 


PROTEST  AND  APPEAL  OF  BISHOP  DOANE, 


AS   A.iGRIF.VED   BY 


BISHOPS  MEADE,  BURGESS,  AND  McTLVAINE ; 


PARTS  OF  HIS  REPLY 


REPRE??ENTATIONS    OF    MESSRS.    HA-.STEAD,    PERKINS, 
COPPFCK  AND  GILL. 


B  ^'     A  N     O  m  ()    L  K  Y  M  A  N 


CINCINNATI : 

\\K)V>XV.  h  ANDERSON,  28  WEST  FOURTH  .STREET. 

IH52. 


6,  2-0.  yo 


^ 


•»#^ 


^i  \u  mm\osi(»f  ^ 


^%: 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


** 


% 


Presented    by  i^^  ,(S^  .  0<::ArrA<f^X~Oy~^  ^~^^FV\  ,"3) 

Division  .. ..P./S.O.      i  IC  O 


i^^^F^' 


'^ 


1 


REVIEW  (*    JUN2O1910 


E£C/CAL 


OF    THE 


PROTEST  AND  APPEAL  OF  EISHOP  DOAM, 


AS   AGGRIEVED   BY 


BISHOPS  MEADE,  BUKGESS,  AND  McILVAINE; 


PARTS  OF  HIS  REPLY 


REPRESENTATIONS    OF   MESSRS.   HALSTEAD,   PERKINS, 
COPPUCK  AND  GILL. 


BY    AN    OHIO    LAYMAN 


CINCINNATI : 

MOORE  &  ANDERSON,  28  WEST  FOURTH  STREET. 

■  1852. 


^y 


CINCINNATI: 

Morgan  cf-  Overend,  Printers. 


REVIEW 


BISHOP  DOANE'S  PROTEST  AND  APPEAL. 


If  the  incipient  steps  recorded  in  his  pamphlet  shall  hereafter  lead 
to  a  public  trial,  bitterly  will  Bishop  Doane  regret  the  folly  of  its  pub- 
lication. We  will  not  say  that  on  his  own  showing  he  may  be  convicted  ; 
but  of  all  the  points  he  has  made,  we  affirm  there  is  not  one  from  Avhich 
his  innocence  can  be  inferred.  If  the  solemnity  of  the  Bishop's  OAvn  de- 
nial be  equivalent  to  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  then  indeed  he  is  an  innocent 
and  much  abused  man.  But  strike  out  from  the  pamphlet  these  un- 
supported denials,  what  remains,  if  not  a  confession  of  guilt,  is  very 
like  an  apology  for  all  but  admitted  indiscretions.      , 

The  three  Bishops  who  unite  in  the  letter  are  handled  very  unceri- 
moniously, — their  conduct  is  denounced  as  uncanonical,  unchristian,  and 
inhuman.  "  For  himself,  he  must  alike  resist  the  intrusion  into  the 
fold  Avhich  he  received  from  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  individual  papacy  of 
Rome,  and  of  the  triumviral  papacy  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio." 
Bishop  Doane's  authority  is  deservedly  great  with  the  Church  of  Rome, 
but  we  doubt  whether  Pope,  Cardinal  or  Archbishop,  will  recognize 
any  resemblance  to  themselves,  in  the  Right  Reverend  Fathers  of  Vir- 
ginia, Maine  and  Ohio.  But  admit  these  gentlemen  to  be  all  that  Bishop 
Doane  asserts  them  to  be,  does  such  admission  involve  his  innocence 
of  the  charges  preferred  against  him,  from  his  own  diocese  ?  They 
may  constitute  a  triumviral  papacy,  and  yet  Bishop  Doane  may  have 
obtained  money  under  false  pretences.  We  are  repeatedly  told  of  the 
length  of  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  commission  of  the  alleged 
frauds,  and  then  somewhat  triumphantly  asked,  why  an  investigation 
has  not  been  earlier  had  ?  Does  the  Bishop  look  so  exclusively  on  one 
side  of  this  grave  matter,  that  he  does  not  see  with  what  damning  force 


4  KEVIEW    OF 

that  argnment  may  be  retorted  upon  him  ?  Nearly  three  years  since, 
in  his  own  village,  in  his  own  convention,  he  himself  presiding,  a  reso- 
lution was  introduced  by  a  respectable  member,  referring  to  rumors 
affecting  the  character  of  the  Bishop,  and  asking  a  committee  of  inves- 
tigation— the  resolution  was  resisted  by  his  friends  and  unanimously 
rejected.  Why  did  he  not  silence  his  friends  and  demand  an  inquiry  ? 
He  says,  "  He  never  has  avoided  an  investigation."  On  the  day  before 
the  resolution  introduced  by  William  Halsted,  he  was  told  of  his  inten- 
tion, by  a  friend  who  had  endeavored  to  prevent  it,  (Charles  King, 
Esquire,  President  of  Columbia  College.)  His  answer  was,  'that 
must  not  be.  Recall  whatever  you  have  said.  By  all  means  let  him 
have  his  way.'  And  the  Avhole  convention  will  bear  witness  that  he 
never  said  one  word  to  influence  their  decision."  And  why  did  he 
not  influence  their  decision  ?  Why  did  he  not  say  to  the  convention 
as  he  said  to  Mr.  King,  "  By  all  means,  let  him  have  his  way,"  and 
the  resolution  Avould  have  been  unanimously  adopted,  as  it  was  unani- 
mously rejected.  Two  conventions  have  since  been  held  in  New  Jersey, 
and  that  "silence  deep  as  death  which  fell  upon  the  assembly"  in  1849, 
has  not  been  broken  by  the  interceding  voice  of  the  Bishop,  that  his 
friends  would  investigate  the  charges  and  relieve  him  from  their  odium. 
An  Irishman  might  be  excused  for  asking,  if  this  "silence"  is  the  voice 
of  innocence  ?  The  passage  of  time  may  give  room  for  repentance  ;  it 
has  no  power  to  transform  a  guilty  act  into  an  innocent  one — nor  does 
any  presumption  arise  that  the  alleged  frauds  were  fair  and  honest 
transactions,  because  they  were  perpetrated  three  years  ago.  If  there 
were  any  badge  of  fraud  upon  them  then,  it  remains  upon  them  now. 
If  there  be  any  force  in  this  lapse  of  time,  it  is  only  in  analogy  to  a 
statute  of  limitatons,  which  the  church  has  wisely  omitted  to  provide 
in  cases  like  this.  Wisely,  we  say,  for  we  apprehend,  that  in  an  eccle- 
siastical court,  unlike  a  civil,  repentance,  reformation  and  restitution 
would  be  a  good  plea.  A  plea  of  the  statute  of  limitations  in  a  criminal 
court,  if  not  a  positive  admission  [of  guilt,  leads  to  the  awkward  con- 
clusion, that  there  is  no  evidence  of  innocence.  The  lapse  of  three 
years  then,  with  so  much  emphasis  urged  by  the  Bishop  against  this 
investigation  now,  leaves  painful  doubts  upon  the  mind,  that  the  trans- 
actions are  not  susceptible  of  very  ready  or  satisfactory  explanations. 
There  is  no  tendency  to  remove  these  doubts  in  the  reflection,  that  this 
investigation  was  with  equal  pertinacity  resisted  when  it  was  new  and 
fresh,  as  now,  when  it  is  averred  to  be  obsolete  and  stale.     The  delay 


BISHOP   DOANE  S   PEOTEST   AND   APPEAL.  5 

wliicli  lias  occurred,  raises  quite  as  strong  a  presumption  of  the  guilt 
of  the  accused,  as  of  the  falsity  of  the  accusation. 

In  the  next  place  we  are  asked,  why  did  not  the  three  Bishops  remon- 
strate with  Bishop  Doane,  when  they  met  in  the  General  Convention 
at  Cincinnati,  in  1850 — and  why  did  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  when  at  Bur- 
lington, in  November  last,  "  give  no  hint  of  any  distrust  in  his  mind, 
of  any  paper  in  his  pocket,  of  any  movement  in  his  heart  ?  And  why 
did  he  not  then  inquire  into  the  truth  of  these  charges  ?"  Really  we 
can  not  answer  these  questions — nor  if  we  could,  do  we  perceive  how 
the  answer  would  throw  any  light  upon  the  matter  before  us. 

Thus  we  might  go  through  all  the  abuse,  assertions,  and  explanations 
of  the  pamphlet,  and  show  how  entirely  they  fail  to  remove  the  suspi- 
cions which  for  some  years  have  attached  to  the  character  and  conduct 
of  Bishop  Doane. 

The  interest  of  the  church  demands  a  more  minute  examination  of 
the  protest,  appeal,  and  reply,  which  we  now  proceed  to  make. 

The  title  page  sets  forth  with  some  precision,  and  some  opprobrious 
epithets,  the  object  of  the  pamphlet.  A  protest  and  appeal  of  G.  W. 
Doane  as  aggrieved  by  the  three  Bishops,  Meade,  Burgess  and  Mcll- 
vane — and  a  reply  to  the  charges  of  Halsted,  Perkins,  Coppuck  and 
Gill. 

That  we  may  do  entire  justice  to  the  Right  Reverend  Gentleman,  we 
insert  the  matter  which  has  called  forth  this  protest,  appeal,  and  reply. 
They  are  taken  from  the  Bishop's  pamphlet,  where  alone  they  are 
accessible  to  the  public.  They  are  not  published  by  the  Bishops,  who 
wrote  the  letter,  nor  by  the  laymen,  who  present  the  charges.  They 
were  guilty  of  no  such  flagrant  impropriety,  to  use  no  harsher  term. 
To  anticipate  the  public  trial,  to  pre-occupy  all  minds  in  favor  of  the 
accused  ;  to  fill  beforehand,  with  sympathy  the  hearts  of  his  judges, 
for  an  innocent  man,  thus  dragged  from  the  sanctuary  of  domestic 
affliction,  and  obliged  to  submit  to  an  investigation  which  he  had  sedu- 
lously shunned ;  to  turn  the  very  common  prejudice  from  himself,  the 
alleged  perpetrator  of  these  frauds,  against  those  who  had  suffered 
from  them,  and  to  discredit  in  advance  the  witnesses  who  may  be  called 
to  sustain  them.  This,  at  all  events,  may  be  the  effect ;  and  Avere  we 
to  surrender  ourselves  to  the  spirit  of  detraction  which  shows  itself  on 
every  page  of  this  pamphlet,  we  would  add,  this  effect,  we  doubt  not, 
its  publication  was  intended  to  produce.  Why  else  its  publication  ? 
General  charges  were  spread  upon  the  records  of  his  own  convention 


6  EEVIEW   OF 

in  1849,  and  there  they  might  have  slept  forever,  their  repose  undis- 
turbed by  himself  or  his  friends.  The  moment  the  charges  assume  a 
more  specific  form,  and  are  given  a  direction  which  canonically  makes 
an  investigation  no  longer  avoidable,  then  it  is.  Bishop  Doane  comes 
before  the  public,  and  abuses  all  connected  vrith  the  prosecution,  in 
terms  of  exaggeration,  which  have  no  parallel,  but  those  in  which  he 
extols  all  connected  with  the  defense.  Why  this  publication  now? 
Why  this  public  defense,  before  he  is  publicly  tried  ?  Why  reply  to 
the  charges  before  he  is  arraigned  ?  Why  appeal  before  he  is  con- 
demned ?  These  questions  will  require  some  other  ansAver  than 
"  a  silence  deep  as  death." 

Letter  from  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  to  the  Bishop  of 

New  Jersey. 

September  22,  1851. 

TO   THE   EIGHT   KEv'd    GEOKGE   WASHINGTON    DOANE. 

Right  Rev.  and  Dear  Sik: 

We  the  undersigned,  your  brethren  in  the  Episcopate,  have  recently  received  from 
certain  lay  members  of  our  Chuch  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  a  communication  call- 
ing upon  us,  to  perform  the  painful  duty  of  making  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  reports  in 
relation  to  yourself,  which  have  been  in  circulation  for  some  years  past.  This  we  are 
requested  to  do,  in  order  that  we  may  determine  whether  it  may  not  be  proper  to  insti- 
tute a  trial  according  to  the  canon  of  the  General  Convention  provided  for  that  purpose. 
Such  is  the  character,  and  so  great  is  the  number  oi  the  charges  specified  in  that  docu- 
ment, that  we  do  not  feel  ourselves  at  liberty  to  decline  the  call  thus  made  upon  us, 
unless  the  object  thereof  can  be  attained  in  some  other  way,  which  shall  satisfy  the 
reasonable  demands  of  complainants  in  your  own  diocese  and  in  the  Church  at  large. 

In  order  to  relieve  ourselves  from  a  most  distressing  duty,  we  have  determined  to  ap- 
peal to  you,  in  the  hope  that  you  will  take  prompt  and  efiectuul  measures,  for  carrying 
into  operation,  what  must  have  been  the  expectation  of  the  church  in  her  canon  for  the 
trial  of  a  Bishop: — viz..  That  action  shall  first  take  place  in  Diocesan  Conventions. 

It  appears  to  us,  that  it  is  only  when  a  Diocesan  Convention  refuses  to  institute  in- 
quiry, or  neglects  to  do  it  for  too  long  a  period,  or  performs  the  duty  unfaithfully,  that 
the  Bishops  can  be  reasonably  expected  to  interfere.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  present  case, 
as  the  above  mentioned  document  sets  forth,  and  as  has  been  otherwise  made  known 
to  us,  it  has  been  wished  and  attempted  to  induce  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  to  take 
this  subject  into  consideration,  and  that  the  effort  has  been  resisted  and  prevented; 
nevertheless  so  reluctant  are  we  to  engage  in  a  task  so  painful  as  that  set  before  us,  that 
we  have  resolved  to  advise  and  urge  you  to  have,  without  delay,  a  Special  Convention 
for  the  purpose  of  a  full  investigation  of  all  that  has  been,  or  may  be,  laid  to  your  charge 
whether  in  the  document  we  transmit  to  you,  or  otherwise.  It  is  also  our  duty,  as  your 
brethren,  and  as  bishops  of  the  church,  most  earnestly  to  impress  it  on  your  mind,  that 
such  is  the  nature  of  the  charges  made  against  you  in  that  document,  and  of  the  same 
and  similar  reports,  which  for  years  have  been  in  circulation  to  the  great  grief  of  many, 
and  the  injury  of  religion,  that  nothing  else  can  satisfy  others,  and  relieve  yourself  from 


BISHOP   DOANE's   protest   AND   APPEAL.  7 

the  suspicion  of  great  guilt,  but  the  appointment,  by  the  Convention,  of  an  impartial 
and  intelligent  committee,  in  whom  great  confidence  will  be  reposed— with  instructions 
to  make  the  fullest  investigation  of  the  evil  reports  which  are,  and  have  been,  assailing 
your  character  and  conduct.  Wo  feel  bound  to  say,  that  no  mere  report  of  a  commit- 
tee, or  vote  of  a  Convention,  declaring  a  belief  of  your  innocency,  and  that  an  inquiry  is 
unnecessary,  will  suffice  for  your  own  reputation,  or  give  satisfaction  to  the  public. 
We  are  persuaded  that  nothing  but  such  an  investigation  as  that  which  we  have  de- 
scribed and  recommended,  can  either  satisfy  those  whom  you  may  deem  unfriendly  to 
you,  or  relieve  the  minds  of  many  an.xious  and  distressed  friends.  Should  such  a  course 
as  we  have  pointed  out  be  pursued  by  you,  and  either  a  presentment  made,  or  sufficient 
reasons  bo  assigned  why  it  is  not  merited— we,  your  brethren,  who  have  been  sought 
out  for  the  purpose,  and  have  most  reluctantly  consented  to  take  any  part  in  it,  will 
rejoice  to  be  relieved  from  the  most  trying  duty  which  could  possibly  be  laid  upon  us. 

Sincerely  praying,  that  you  may  be  able  to  disprove,  or  satisfactorily  e.xplain,  the 
things  laid  to  your  charge,  or  else  have  grace  from  God  to  acknowledge  whatever  has 
been  done  amiss— we  remain  your  friends  and  brethren  in  the  ministry  of  Christ. 

WILLIAM  MEADE, 

Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  C.  of  V—a. 

GEORGE  BURGESS, 
Bishop  of  the  Frot.   Epis.  Church  in  JSlaine. 

CHA'S   P.  McILVAINE, 
Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Church  in  Ohio. 

Communication— from  William  Hahted,  Caleb  Perkins,  Peter  V.  Cop- 
2)uck,  and  Bennington  Gill — to  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio,  and 
Maine. 

To  the  Right  Reverend  William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia;  the 
Right  Reverend  Charles  P.  McLlvaine,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Ohio ;  and 
the  Right  Reverend  Geokge  Bukgess,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Maine. 
For  a  long  period,  more  especially  for  the  two  years  last  past,  grave  and  serious 
charges,  injuriously  affecting  the  moral  character  of  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  tending 
to  impair  his  usefulness,  and  to  bring  our  Church  under  reproach,  have  been  rife,  and 
they  have  continued  to  increase  until  they  have  reached  a  magnitude  and  assumed  a 
form  which  the  blind  can  scarcely  fail  to  see,  or  the  deaf  to  hear.  Believing  that  the 
best  welfare  of  the  Church  requires  that  the  charges  should  be  promptly  met,  and  the 
Church  be  relieved  of  the  odium  under  which  she  rests,  while  the  same  continue  to 
circulate  undenied  and  unrefuted,  we  had  fondly  hoped  that  the  individual  implicated 
would  have  sought  the  earliest  opportunity  of  relieving  his  own  character  from  the 
imputations  which  are  almost  daily  made  against  it,  and  of  dissipating  the  dark  cloud 
of  obloquy  which,  in  consequence  of  these  imputations  against  its  ecclesiastical  head, 
now  grievously  mars  the  fair  character  of  our  Church. 

We  deeply  regret  that  the  Bishop  did  not  embrace  the  opportunity  which  was  offered 
him  by  the  resolution  of  inquiry  presented  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  at  the  City 
of  Burlington,  in  1849,  of  meeting  and  repelling  the  rumors  and  charges  which  were 
then  known  to  be  in  current  circulation  against  him.  The  course  then  taken  served  to 
confirm,  rather  than  diminish,  the  suspicions,  that  these  charges  had  foundation  in 
truth.  Since  then  we  have  waited  till  two  other  annual  Conventions  have  passed,  at 
either  of  which  the  Bishop  has  had  a  full  and  free  opportunity  of  demanding  an  investi- 


8  REVIEW   OF 

gation  of  the  truth  of  these  charges.  But  instead  of  demanding  an  investigation  as 
every  honorable  man  in  society  feels  bound  to  do  when  imputations  are  made  against 
his  character,  we  discover  a  manifest  intention  to  avoid  investigation,  and  to  leave 
these  rumors  and  charges  to  circulate  for  another  year  unchecked,  uncleared,  and  unre- 
futed. 

Acting  in  the  spirit  of  the  26th  Article  of  our  religion,  which  declares.  That  it  apper- 
taineth  to  the  discipline  of  the  Church  that  inquiries  be  made  of  evil  ministers,  and  that 
they  be  accused  "  by  those  that  have  knowledge  of  their  offenses,"  we  felt  ourselves 
called  upon  to  make  such  an  investigation  into  the  nature  and  truth  o(  these  charges,  as 
to  enable  us  to  perform  our  duty ;  and,  upon  such  investigation,  we  are  compelled, 
reluctantly,  to  say  that  there  are  many  charges  publicly  made  against  the  Bishop  of  this 
Diocese,  which  ought,  in  our  opinion,  to  be  investigated  under  the  Canon  of  the  General 
Convention  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  in  order  that,  if  false,  their  falsity  may  be 
made  manifest,  or,  if  true,  that  further  measures  may  be  taken  under  the  same  Canon 
to  relieve  the  Church  from  the  odium  which  they  inflict  upon  her.  Amongst  others  of 
these  charges  visited  by  public  rumor  upon  the  Bishop  and  the  Church  in  New  Jersey, 
the  following  have  come  to  our  knowledge : 

[  Here  follow  the  charges,  which  are  inserted  in  the  Keply.] 

We  believe  that  the  foregoing  charges  and  specifications  can  be  sustained  by  proof, 
and  we  therefore  present  them  to  you,  three  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Bishops  of  the  Church, 
in  order  that  you  may  take  such  measures  in  accordance  with  the  Canons  of  the  Church, 
in  relation  to  the  same,  as  your  official  duty  and  your  well  known  devotion  to  the  wel- 
fare of  the  Church,  may  seem  to  you  to  require. 

In  this  communication,  we  have  by  no  means  embraced  all  that  is  charged  against 
Bishop  Doane  by  public  rumor.  Other  matters  of  a  like  dishonorable  and  unbecoming 
character,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  will  develop  themselves  to  your  official  notice, 
whenever  you  shall  see  fit  to  act  upon  this  investi<{ation. 

In  making  these  charges,  we  are  actuated  by  no  motives  of  personal  hostility  against 
the  Bishop,  but  our  motive  is  to  sustain  and  vindicate  the  reputation  of  that  Church  of 
which  we  are  humble  members. 

New  Jersey,  August,  1851.  Signed, 

WM.  HALSTED, 
CALEB  PERKINS, 
PETER  V.  COPPUCK, 
BENNINGTON  GILL. 

We  add  the  first  section  of  the  canon  of  1844,  entitled  "Of  the 
trial  of  a  Bishop:" 

Section  1.  The  trial  of  a  Bishop  shall  be  on  a  presentment  in  writing,  specifying  the 
offense  of  which  he  is  alleged  to  be  guilty,  with  reasonable  certainty  as  to  time,  place, 
and  circumstances.  Such  presentment  may  be  made  for  any  crime  or  immorality,  for 
heresy,  for  a  violation  of  the  constitution  or  canons  of  this  Church,  or  of  the  Church 
in  the  diocese  to  which  he  belongs.  Said  presentment  may  be  made  by  the  Convention 
of  the  diocese,  to  which  the  accused  Bishop  belongs,  two-thirds  of  each  order  present 
concurring :  Provided,  that  two-thirds  of  the  clergy  entitled  to  seats  in  said  Conven- 
tion be  present :  and  provided  also,  that  two-thirds  of  the  parishes  canonically  in  union 
with  said  Convention  be  represented  tlierein ;  and  the  vote  thereon,  shall  not  in  any 
case  take  place  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  resolution  to  present,  is  offered ;  it  may 


BISHOP   DOANES     PKOTEST   AND   APPEAL.  \) 

also  be  made  by  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church — When  made  by  the  Convention,  it 
shall  be  signed  by  a  committee  of  prosecution,  composed  of  three  clergymen  and  three 
laymen,  to  be  appointed  for  that  purpose ;  and  when  by  three  Bishops,  it  shall  be  signed 
by  them  respectively,  in  their  official  characters. 

This  letter  and  this  communication  have  occasioned  the  pamphlet ; 
in  which,  Bishop  Doane  first  addresses  to  the  three  Bishops  a  joint 
protest,  appeal,  and  reply.     He  says  : 

That  he  received,  through  an  unknown  hand,  on  this  second  day  of  February,  a  docu- 
ment with  their  signatures,  addressed  to  him,  and  dated,  without  place,  on  the  twenty- 
second  day  of  September,  1851,  a  copy  of  which  with  the  document  accompanying  it, 
signed,  "William  Halsted,  Caleb  Perkins,  Peter  V.  Coppuck,  and  Bennington  Gill,"  is 
prefixed ;  and  that  he  has  read  th-;  two,  with  mingled  surprise  and  indignation.  With 
surprise,  that  three  persons,  bearing  the  responsibilities  of  Bishops,  in  the  Church  of 
God,  could  be  lound  to  take  action,  against  a  Bishop,  on  the  showing  of  four  persons 
With  indignation,  that  three  persons  bearing  the  responsibilities  of  Bishops  in  the 
Church  of  God,  and  presumed  to  be  acquainted  with  the  principles  of  diocesan  and 
episcopal  relations,  should  venture  on  a  proceeding,  so  utterly  inconsistent  with  both. 

This  surprise  of  Bishop  Doane  ^ye  think  will  not  be  participated  by 
any  Avho  will  read  the  section  of  the  canon  which  we  have  inserted. 
A  presentment  shall  not  be  made  against  a  Bishop  by  a  convention,  in 
which  there  is  no  member  of  his  own  order,  and  generally  if  not  always 
a  majority  of  laymen,  except  under  circumstances  so  strong  and  by 
a  vote  so  large,  as  to  preclude  all  reasonable  doubt  of  the  guilt  of  the 
accused.  These  precautions  were  thought  necessary  to  guard  a  Bishop 
against  the  hasty  action  of  a  diocesan  convention.  Not  so,  however, 
when  the  canon  provides  that  a  presentment  "  may  be  made  by  any  three 
Bishops  of  this  church."  There  was  no  danger  of  precipitate  action 
from  this  quai'ter.  Sufficient  guards  are  found  in  the  unwillingness  to 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  church  of  which  the  Bishops  are  the  overseers, 
sympathy  for  an  accused  brother,  and  especially  that  esjyrit  de  corps, 
which  acts  so  powerfully  in  all  associations.  Let  the  motive,  however, 
have  been  what  it  may,  the  church  has  authorized  three  of  her  Bishops 
to  make  a  presentment  of  another  Bishop,  for  any  of  the  causes  speci- 
fied in  the  canon  ;  with  no  other  limitation  upon  their  discretion,  than 
that  the  presentment  shall  be  in  writing,  specifying  the  offense  of  which 
he  is  alleged  to  be  guilty,  with  reasonable  certainty  as  to  time,  place 
and  circumstances,  and  that  it  shall  be  signed  by  them  respectively  in 
their  official  characters.  Had  the  action  taken  by  the  Bishops  been  a 
formal  presentment,  not  "on  the  showing  of  four  persons,"  but  with- 
out the  showing  of  any  person,  upon  their  own  knowledge,  or  upon 


10  KEVIEW    OF 

facts  communicated  by  others,  it  would  have  been  sufficient  to  put 
Bishop  Doane  upon  his  trial  ;  it  could  not  have  been,  canonically,  the 
cause  of  any  surprise.  "We  apprehend  that  under  the  canon,  the 
action  of  the  presenting  Bishops  is  not  to  be  governed  by  the  number 
of  the  accusers,  but  by  the  character  of  the  charges  and  the  probability 
of  guilt.  What  degree  of  this  probability  will  justify  a  presentment, 
is  left  by  the  canon  to  the  consciences  of  the  Bishops  who  make  it. 
And  for  their  action  in  this  behalf,  they  are  responsible  to  the  church 
and  to  their  God.  But  there  is  no  presentment  yd.  When  that  shall 
be  made,  and  the  court  organized,  and  the  accused  arraigned,  then  will 
be  the  time  for  Bishop  Doane  and  his  legal  advisers  to  object  to  the 
sufficiency  of  the  presentment ;  that  it  was  made  upon  "the  showing 
of  four  persons,"  only.  However  plausible  or  strong  even  this  objection 
may  appear  to  those  who  have  learned  the  responsibilities  of  Bishops 
from  "the  voice  of  primitive  antiquity,"  or  from  any  other  source  than 
the  clear  and  well  defined  constitution  and  canons  of  our  own  church, 
we  now  record  the  prediction,  to  be  fulfilled  or  falsified  hereafter,  that 
no  respectable  lawyer  will  be  found  to  urge  it  upon  the  court,  when 
sitting  for  the  trial  of  these  charges.  Such  a  court  is  now  inevitable. 
So  much  for  the  surprise.  Now  for  the  indignation,  which  has  been 
excited  by  a  proceeding  so  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of 
diocesan  and  episcopal  relations.  We  have  shown  that  the  proceeding 
is  in  accordance  with  the  canon  of  our  episcopal  church,  and  therefore 
can  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  principles  which  that  church  recognizes 
of  diocesan  and  episcopal  relations. 

Bishop  Doane  then  proceeds :  "to  multiply  charges  and  to  make 
them  odious,  seem  thus  sufficient  in  the  judgment  of  the  three,  to  war- 
rant and  indeed  compel  proceedings  against  a  Bishop."  And  if  against 
any  other  man,  why  not  against  a  Bishop  ?  There  is  nothing  in  a 
Bishop's  nature  which  exempts  him  from  the  commission  of  crimes  ; 
nor  is  there  anything  in  his  office  which  screens  him  from  their  trial 
and  punishment.  Can  the  Bishop  be  serious  in  urging  that  he  ought 
not  to  be  put  upon  his  trial,  because  the  charges  against  him  are 
numerous  and  odious  ?  If  his  logic  be  sound,  then  he  ought  to  have 
been  put  upon  his  trial,  if  the  charges  had  been  few  and  venial.  We 
know  of  but  one  precedent  for  this  reasoning,  "If  to  be  fat  be  to  be- 
hated,  then  Pharaoh's  lean  kine  are  to  be  loved."  Our  surprise  at  the 
folly  of  this  reasoning  is  almost  "heated  into  indignation"  by  the 
arrogance  of  its  episcopal  presumption.     We  should  like  to  stop  and 


BISHOP   DOANe's    PKOTEST   AND   APPEAL.  11 

inquire  by  what  process  heat  converts  surprise  into  indignation,  did 
we  not  fear  our  indignation  might  cool  before  it  had  vented  itself  upon 
the  monstrous  pretension,  that  their  number  and  odiousness  which 
aggravate  all  other  men's  crimes,  have  the  opposite  effect, — to  exten- 
uate those  of  a  Bishop. 

Again,  Bishop  Doane  asks,  "  will  it  be  endured  that  they  shall  speak 
of  *  complainants'  in  the  diocese  of  the  undersigned,  and  then  be  able 
to  produce  but  four?  "  What  would  the  Bishop  have  ?  The  allega- 
tion that  there  are  complainants  in  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey,  is 
certainly  sustained  by  producing  four.  Had  they  produced  but  one, 
he  might  have  reasonably  objected.  This  point  in  the  Bishop's  pam- 
phlet is  merely  captious,  and  we  think  will  have  no  tendency  to  help 
his  cause.  But,  to  such  as  it  is,  there  are  several  sufficient  answers. 
It  was  not  the  object  of  the  letter,  nor  did  it  profess  to  give,  or  its 
authors  to  know  the  names  of  all  the  complainants  in  New  Jersey,  any 
more  than  "in  the  church  at  large."  In  the  very  sentence  in  which 
the  word  complainants  is  found,  at  the  use  of  which  the  Bishop  cavils, 
direct  reference  is  made  to  the  document  accompanying  their  letter, 
and  signed  by  the  four,  leaving  the  inference  irresistible,  that  they 
were  the  complainants  referred  to  in  New  Jersey.  The  point  is  scarcely 
worth  the  explanation. 

The  following  sentence  savors  a  little  of  sarcasm:  "How  far  the 
churchmen  of  New  Jersey  will  permit  the  four  whose  names  are 
written  above,  to  be  their  representatives,  the  undersigned  most  cheer- 
fully consents  that  they  should  say."  The  four  do  not  claim  to  be  the 
representatives  of  the  churchmen  of  New  Jersey.  They  do  not  ask 
permission  to  be  such  representatives,  and  therefore  it  it  unnecessary 
for  the  churchmen  of  New  Jersey  to  avail  themselves  of  the  gracious 
consent  cheerfully  accorded  to  them  by  the  Bishop,  to  say  w^hether 
they  permit  it  or  not.  It  is  not  necessary  to  a  trial  that  the  four  should 
be  representatives  of  the  chui'chmen.  Charges  may  be  made  by  indi- 
viduals, though  a  presentment  by  a  convention  is  ex  vl  termini  made 
by  the  church.  There  is  in  this  paragraph  a  tendency  if  not  design,  to 
prejudice  the  churchmen  of  New  Jersey  against  the  four.  We  think 
it  will  scarcelv  avail  the  Bishop.  The  trial  is  not  to  be  had  before  the 
churchmen  of  New  Jersey.  The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  will  have  no 
seat  with  his  peers.  The  church  has  provided  an  independent  tribunal, 
out  of  the  reach  of  prejudice  ;  under  the  most  solemn  obligations  to, 
try  the  issue  between   the   parties  without   fear,  favor   or   affection 


12  REVIEW   OF 

Before  a  court  thus  composed  let  Bishop  Doane  be  assured,  that  no 
abuse  of  the  prosecutors,  no  impeachment  of  their  motives,  no  asser- 
tion of  innocence  however  loud,  no  official  airs  however  imposing,  will 
avail  him.  There  will  be  but  one  question,  of  innocence  or  guilt,  and 
the  determination  of  that  question  will  depend  upon  the  oaths  of  disin- 
terested witnesses. 

"But  surprise  is  heated  into  indignation  when  the  three  Bishops 
announce  their  resolution."  0,  that  we  were  dealing  with  the  Bishop 
in  his  philological  character,  rather  than  his  episcopal ;  we  resist  the 
temptation,  and  pass  on. 

In  the  examination  we  propose  to  make  of  the  Bishop's  protest  it 
will  be  necessary  to  refer  largely  to  the  letter  of  "the  three  ;  "  Ave 
therefore  omit  the  long  quotation  from  that  letter,  which  here  follows 
in  Bishop  Doane's  pamphlet.  We  proceed  to  his  indignant  exclama- 
tion— "What!  three  Bishops,  or  three  hundred,  or  three  thousand, 
presume  to  dictate  to  him,  under  the  menace  of  a  presentment,  the 
calling  of  a  special  meeting  of  the  convention  of  his  diocese."  (There 
is  a  touch  of  Jersey  blue  in  this.)  We  shall  hereafter  show  that  there 
is  in  the  letter  no  dictation,  merely  a  friendly  suggestion — no  menace, 
merely  a  kind  hint  of  a  disagreeable  alternative.  But  admit  it  to  be  a 
dictation,  what  is  its  purport  ?  Why,  that  after  these  charges  have  been 
publicly  made  in  the  convention  of  New  Jersey  and  iavestigation 
refused,  the  church  will  be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  a  thorough 
investigation  by  an  impartial  and  intelligent  committee,  and  either  a 
presentment  made,  or  ' '  sufficient  reasons  assigned  why  it  is  not  merited.'* 
Would  an  innocent  man,  conscious  of  his  innocence,  find  anything  hard 
or  offensive  in  these  terms  ?  would  such  a  man  be  satisfied  with  any- 
thing less  himself  ?  and  if  not,  why  complain  that  his  OAvn  terms  are 
required  by  others  ? 

"Not  even  if  the  convention  of  New  Jersey  as  in  1849,  should 
by  a  vote  unanimous,  declare  themselves  contented  with  their  Bishop, 
and  refuse  to  investigate,  would  that  content  the  three."  And  why 
should  "a  refusal  to  investigate"  content  the  three  ?  Does  a  presump- 
tion of  innocence  arise  from  a  refusal  to  submit  to  the  only  test  by 
which  innocence  can  be  established  ?  We  forbear  at  present,  as  we 
shall  be  obliged  hereafter  to  refer  to  the  Avonderful  results  claimed  from 
this  refusal  to  investigate  by  the  convention  of  1849. 

"  And  all  the  while,  might  not  the  real  secret  of  their  earnestness 
to  have  the  presentment  made  by  the  convention,  be  their  anxiety  to 


BISHOP   DOANe's    protest   AND   APPEAL.  13 

save  their  own  three  votes,  for  use  upon  the  triaL"  See  how  this  httle 
battery  (little  in  its  power  and  range,  but  mighty  in  its  malice  and 
imcharitableness)  may  be  turned  against  Bishop  Doane.  And  all  the 
while  may  not  the  real  secret  of  Bishop  Doane's  refusal  of  an  investi- 
gation by  his  own  (we  may  add  partial)  convention,  be  a  determination 
on  his  part  to  exclude  from  the  court  three  Bishops,  who  by  this 
refusal,  Avould  be  compelled  to  make  the  presentment. 

"But  the  three  Bishops  have  misconceived  their  man."  "  No  such 
special  convention  will  be  called  by  him."  Be  it  so.  He  accepts  the 
alternative.  The  court  must  assemble.  He  will  be  tried  by  his  peers, 
and  God  grant  him  a  safe  deliverance. 

He  concludes  in  the  following  words  :  "And  in  the  name  and  pres- 
ence of  Almighty  God,"  he  now  proceeds  to  make,  to  record  and  to 
proclaim  his  solemn  protest,  and  his  appeal  as  solemn,  to  the  Bishops 
everywhere  with  whom  he  is  in  communion,  against  the  uncanonical, 
unchristian  and  inhuman  procedure  of  the  three  whose  names  are 
above  written.     Pass  we  on  to  this 

PROTEST. 

In  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Amen.  The 
undersigned,  George  Washington  Doane,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  by  Divine  permission,  Bishop 
of  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey,  humbly  ministering  before  God,  in  the  twentieth  year  of 
his  Episcopate,  in  the  name  of  His  crucified  Son,  and  in  the  power  of  his  Sanctifying 
Spirit ;  and  not  without  tokens  of  the  Heavenly  blessing,  on  his  unfaithful  and  unwor- 
thy ministrations :  makes,  now,  as  in  the  immediate  presence  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
adorable  and  ever  to  be  blessed,  his  solemn  Protest,  as  aggrieved  by  the  Right  Reverend 
William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia;  the  Right  Reverend  George 
Burgess,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Maine  ;  and  the  Right  Reverend  Charles  Pet- 
tit  M'llvaine,  D,  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Ohio,  by  their  uncanonical,  unchristian 
and  inhuman  procedure,  in  regard  to  him,  as  herebefore  set  forth,  in  the  document,  bear- 
ing their  signatures. 

He  protests  against  their  action  as  uncanonical.  The  undersigned  is  the  Bishop  of  a 
diocese.  The  three  signers  are  Bishops,  in  three  several  dioceses.  The  limit  of  the 
diocese,  in  every  case,  is  the  limit  of  official  action.  There  is  nothing  clearer  in  the 
voice  of  primitive  antiquity,  than  the  prohibition  of  episcopal  intrusion.  Nothing  with- 
in our  age,  has  been  the  cause  of  more  excitement,  than  the  aggression  of  the  Bishop  o 
Rome,  upon  the  dioceses  of  the  Bishops  in  England.  The  Council,  which  set  forth  the 
Nicene  Creed,  A.  D.  325,  prefixes,  to  the  Canon  of  Episcopal  limitations  the  emphatic 
sentence,  "Let  the  ancient  customs  be  maintained!"  And  the  second  Canon  of  the 
second  General  Council,  A.  D.  381,  at  which  the  Creed  of  Nicasa  was  completed,  refer- 
ring to  the  decree  of  the  former  Council,  distinctly  says,  "  the  Bishops  must  not  go 
beyond  their  dioceses,  nor  enter  upon  churches  without  their  borders,  nor  bring  confu- 
sion into  their  churches."  And,  again,  "  Bishops  may  not,  without  being  called,  go 
beyond  the  bounds  of  their  diocese,  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining,  or  any  other  eclesias- 
tical  function."    The  TrpccTov  ■^iuJ'o;  of  the  Papacy  is  the  claim  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 


14  KEVIEW    OF 

to  jurisdiction  beyond  his  diocese  :  and  this  first  lie  has  been  the  fruitful  source  of  every 
Romish  error  and  corruption.  By  the  fourth  Article  of  the  "Constitution,"  ''for  the 
government  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,"  it  is 
ordained,  that  "  every  Bishop  of  the  Church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal 
office  to  his  proper  diocese"  And,  when  the  Apostle  Peter,  in  the  first  of  his  holy 
Epistles,  which,  by  their  divine  inspiration,  are  higher  than  all  Canons  or  any  Constitu- 
tions, enjoins  on  the  believers,  "let  none  of  you  suffer,  as  a  murderer,  or  as  a  thief,  or 
as  an  evil  doer,  or  as  a  busy  body  in  other  men's  matter;''  the  character  last  described 
is,  in  the  original,  aKXoTpio  ima-xcTro;,  which  literally  means  a  Bishop,  out  of  his  own  dio- 
cese. That  the  action  now  complained  of  is  the  action  of  these  three,  as  Bishops,  is 
manifest,  in  all  the  paper,  which  they  send,  as  well  as  in  the  style,  with  which  they  sign 
it.  That  their  sole  office  as  Bishops,  in  any  case,  where  discipline  is  called  for,  towards 
a  Bishop,  is  to  make  a  presentment,  the  Canon,  "  Of  the  Trial  of  a  Bishop,"  clearly 
shows.  That  the  right  of  any  three  Bishops,  to  present  the  Bishop  of  a  diocese,  is  lim- 
ited to  cases,  where  a  Diocesan  Convention,  for  some  cause,  disregards  its  duty,  in  the 
premises,  is  manifest,  from  the  whole  structure  of  the  Canon ;  which,  on  any  other  con- 
struction, could  never  have  permitted  three  Bishops,  in  a  Church,  where  there  are  more 
than  thirty,  to  stand,  as  the  alternative,  of  two-thirds  of  each  order,  in  a  Diocesan  Con- 
vention, where  two-thirds  of  the  Clergy,  entitled  to  seats,  and  two-lhirds  of  the  parishes 
canonicaliy  in  union,  were  present.  And  yet,  departing  from  their  place,  transcend- 
ing all  tueir  rights,  invading  another  diocese,  and  dictating  to  another  Bishop,  they  pre- 
scribe, as  the  condition  of  their  not  presenting  him,  the  course  which  he  shall  pursue, 
the  course  which  his  diocese  shall  pursue,  the  course  which  his  Convention  shall  pursue, 
and  the  course  w;iich  its  Committee  shall  pursue.  They  reject,  before  hand,  the  dec- 
laration of  the  Convention,  among  whom  their  Bishop  has  gone  in  and  out,  for  twenty 
years,  that  they  believe  him  innocent.  They  reject,  before  hand,  the  determination  of  the 
•Convention,  that  inquiry  is  unnecessary.  They  must  have  the  very  investigation  which 
ithey  "  advise  and  urge;"  which  they  "  have  described  and  recommended  ;"  which  they 
"have  pointed  out;"  or,  else,  the  undersigned  must  be  presented.  Against  this  aggres- 
sion on  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey;  against  this  invasion  of  the  most  sacred  rights  of  the 
undersigned ;  against  this  dictation  to  him  to  pursue  a  course  marked  out  by  them, 
and  to  his  Convention,  to  pursue  that  course,  under  the  threat  of  a  presentment,  if  such 
dictation  shall  not  be  obeyed  ;  and  thus,  the  fear  of  a  presentment  be  admitted;  the  un- 
jdersigned  most  solemnly  protests  as  uncanonical ;  and  utterly  refuses  to  submit  to  it. 

The  Bishop  asserts  that  he  is  aggrieved  by  the  letter  of  "the 
three,"  and  protests  against  it,  as  uncanonical,  unchristian,  and  in- 
human. 

There  was  no  necessity  for  going  back  to  the  period  of  "primitive 
antiquity,"  nor  to  appeal  to  the  canons  of  ancient  councils,  to  show 
a  constant  prohibition  in  the  Church  of  Episcopal  intrusion.  The  con- 
^stitution  of  our  own  Church,  as  Bishop  Doane  shows,  forbids  such 
■intrusion.  Upon  this  prohibition,  a  plain  man  would  have  rested  his 
case.  But  Bishop  Doane  is  not  a  plain  man,  and,  like  Mr.  Shandy,  he 
prefers  a  reason  recondite  and  remote,  to  one  obvious  and  present. 
-*'  The  son  ought  to  pay  her  respect,"  as  you  may  read,  Yorick,  at  large 
in  the  first  book  of  the  Institutes  of  Justinian,  at  the  eleventh  title,  and 


BISHOP    DOANe's    protest   AND   APPEAL.  15 

the  tenth  section,     "lean  read  it  as  well,"  replied  Yorick,  "in  the 
catechism." 

We  readily  concede  that  the  letter  of  "the  three"  is  uncanonical, 
so  far  as  this,  that  the  canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  does  not  con- 
template such  a  letter,  nor  can  it  be  defended  under  the  authority  of 
that  or  any  other  canon  of  our  Church.  If  the  writing  and  addressing 
that  letter  to  Bishop  Doane  by  "the  three,"  were  an  uncanonical 
"procedure,"  then  it  could  not  have  been  the  exercise  of  their 
Episcopal  office  out  of  their  own  diocese ;  and,  therefore,  no  violation 
of  the  constitution.  If  uncanonical,  it  was  ex  necessitate  unofficial. 
But  official  acts  alone  are  interdicted  to  one  Bishop  in  the  diocese 
of  another.  One  Bishop  may  lawfully  pass  through  the  diocese  of 
another — one  Bishop  may  lawfully  write  a  letter  to  another  in  his  own 
diocese,  and  though  the  subject  of  that  letter  may  be  the  general  inter- 
ests of  the  Church,  or  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  addressed,  yet  such 
letter  is  clearly  not  the  exercise  of  the  Episcopal  office.  Bishop  Doane 
takes  this  view  of  it  himself,  for,  at  pages  12  and  13,  he  complains 
that  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  when  in  Burlington,  did  not  take  that  oppor- 
tunity of  inquiring  into  the  truth  of  the  charges ;  and  that  the  Bishops 
of  Virginia  and  Maine,  "with  the  multiplied  and  multiform  occasions 
which  the  rail  road  and  the  mail  supply,  without  one  previous  word, 
did  approach  the  undersigned,  whom  they  describe  as  a  'brother,' 
in  February,  1852,  in  an  official  paper  with  their  official  signatures." 
Now,  if  either  or  all  of  these  gentlemen  had  done  the  specific  things 
which  Bishop  Doane  intimates  they  should  have  done,  and  complains 
they  did  not  do,  it  would  not  have  been  for  him  to  denounce  such 
things  as  an  exercise  of  their  Episcopal  office,  and  a  violation  of  the 
constitution.  If  Bishop  Mcllvaine  had  inquired  at  Burlington  into 
the  truth  of  these  charges, — if  Bishop  Meade  or  Bishop  Burgess  had 
availed  themselves  of  the  railroad,  and  personally  remonstrated  Avith 
Bishop  Doane  against  the  course  of  conduct  with  which  he  stood 
charged  ;  or,  if  by  mail,  either  or  all  of  them  had  written  him  an 
unofficial  letter  upon  the  subject,  it  is  clearly  admitted  that,  in  neither 
event,  would  there  have  been  an  exercise  of  the  Episcopal  office.  He 
complains  that  there  was  not  "one  previous  word,"  that  is,  not  one 
word  previous  to  this  "official  paper,"  thereby  drawing  a  very  proper 
distinction  between  a  private  and  an  official  act.  Now,  if  the  letter 
complained  of  and  denounced  as  an  official  act,  be  not  in  fact  an 
official  act,  but  private  and  individual,  then  that  letter  itself  being 


16  REVIEW    OF 

private,  becomes  the  "previous  word,"  whicli  Bishop  Doane  intimates, 
in  other  places  than  this,  ought  to  have  been  spoken.  If  so,  the 
speaking  or  writing  that  previous  word  would  not  have  been  an  act 
of  Episcopal  intrusion. 

"We  agree,  therefore,  with  Bishop  Doane,  that  the  decision  of 
the  controversy,  between  himself  and  "the  three,"  turns  upon  the 
character  of  their  letter.  If  it  be  an  Episcopal  act,  it  is  unauthorized  ; 
if  non-episcopal,  it  takes  from  him  any  ground  of  complaint ;  for,  if 
unofficial,  it  can  not  be  forbidden  by  the  canon,  and  we  shall  be  able 
to  show,  that  it  is  the  reverse  of  unchristian  or  inhuman. 

We  deny  the  letter  in  any  sense  to  be  official.  We  are  not  disposed 
to  lay  much  stress  upon  the  argument  drawn  from  technical  defini- 
tions ;  but  still,  we  can  not  decide  this  question  without  ascertaining 
what  it  is  that  constitutes  an  official  act.  Webster  and  Johnson  both 
define  official,  "pertaining  to  an  office  or  pubHc  trust."  Try  the 
character  of  the  letter  by  this  test : — was  it  any  part  of  the  Episcopal 
function  of  "the  three"  to  write  that  letter,  if  not,  then  it  did  not 
pertain  to  their  office  or  public  trust ;  and  if  it  did  not  so  pertain,  it 
was  not  official — it  was  not  written  virtute  officii. 

Now,  whether  it  pertains  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop  to  write  such 
a  letter,  depends  upon  the  constitution  and  canons  of  the  Church. 
We  shall  content  ourselves  with  affirming  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
constitution  and  canons  of  our  own  Church,  which  makes  it  the  duty 
of  a  Bishop,  or  gives  him  any  authority  to  write  such  a  letter.  So  far 
is  this  from  being  the  case,  that  the  General  Convention,  when  legis- 
lating upon  this  very  subject,  have  omitted  to  require  any  act  by  the 
three  Bishops  previous  to  making  a  presentment.  Whether  those  who 
find  so  much  music  in  "the  voice  of  primitive  antiquity,"  shall  be 
able  to  find  any  canon  of  ancient  councils,  eastern  or  western,  of  Nice, 
Ephesus,  or  Constantinople,  of  Lateran,  Lyons,  or  Trent,  which  is 
of  authority  to  make  that  act  official,  which,  by  our  own  constitution 
and  canons  is  unofficial,  Ave  shall  leave  them  to  show.  We  suppose 
none  such  can  be  found,  for  Bishop  Doane  refers  to  several  ancient 
councils,  but  gives  no  intimation  of  such  a  canon.  Indeed,  the  Bishop's 
argument  upon  the  first  point  of  his  protest  is  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion, that  writing  the  letter  was  an  attempt  to  exercise  jurisdiction 
beyond  their  own  dioceses,  and  an  intrusion  upon  his,  interdicted  by 
ancient  canons  ;  and  by  the  constitution  and  canons  of  our  own  Church, 
absolutely  prohibited.     Can  an  act  pertain  to  an  office,  which  act  the 


BISHOP   DOANe's    protest   AND   APPEAL.  17 

officer  is  forbidden  to  do  ?  Is  not  such  an  act  plainly  extra-official, 
"not  within  the  limits  of  officijl  duty?"  The  Bishop  says,  that  it  is 
official,  "is  manifest  in  all  the  paper  which  they  send,  as  well  as  in 
the  style  with  which  they  sign  it,"  We  think  just  the  reverse  is 
manifest  from  the  paper.  It  is  manifestly  and  avowedly  an  effort  to 
relieve  themselves  from  the  necessity  of  doing  "a  most  distressino- 
duty,"  the  official  act  of  making  the  presentment,  and  to  throw  that 
duty  upon  the  diocesan  convention,  for  they  appeal  to  Bishop  Doane 
in  the  hope  that  he  will  take  prompt  and  effectual  measures  for  callino- 
such  a  convention.  And  this  Bishop  Doane  charges  upon  them  in  the 
following  sentence: — "And  all  the  while,  might  not  the  real  secret 
of  their  earnestness  to  have  the  presentment  made  by  the  convention, 
be  their  anxiety  to  save  their  own  votes  for  use  upon  the  trial  ?"  The 
letter  sets  up  no  pretension,  advances  no  claim  to  be  official.  "We 
have  determined  to  appeal  to  you,"  language  which  they  certainly 
would  not  have  used,  if  the  canon  had  left  them  no  discretion,  nothino- 
about  which  they  were  at  liberty  to  determine,  but  had  made  the 
appeal  a  matter  of  official  obligation.  Then,  as  to  the  style  of  the 
signatures — it  may  be  enough  to  say  that  if  the  act  performed  be  not 
Avithin  the  limits  of  official  duty,  the  official  signatures  can  not  brino-  it 
within  those  limits.  It  is  proper  that  an  official  act  be  attested  by  an 
official  signature ;  but  it  is  not  the  signature,  but  the  character  of  the 
act,  which  makes  it  official. 

Bishop  Doane,  however,  yields  the  whole  controversy  in  the  follow- 
ing sentence,  which  follows  immediately  that  in  which  he  insists  upon 
the  signatures.  "That  their  sole  office,  as  Bishops,  in  any  case  where 
discipline  is  called  for  against  a  Bishop,  is  to  make  a  presentment,  the 
canon  'of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop'  clearly  shows."  Now,  if,  as  he  asserts, 
and  asserts  truly,  their  sole  office  as  Bishoj)s  in  this  case  was  to  make  a 
presentment,  then  the  writing  the  letter  was  not  their  office  as  Bishops 
and  there  is  an  end  of  the  controversy. 

Let  us. for  a  single  moment  look  into  the  fourth  article  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  American  Church,  which  declares,  that  "  every  Bishop 
of  this  church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal  office  to  his 
proper  diocese,  unless  requested  to  ordain  or  confirm,  or  perform  any 
other  act  of  the  episcopal  office,  by  any  church  destitute  of  a  Bishop.'' 
The  instances  of  "ordaining  or  confirming,"  even  unaided  by  the 
words  following  in  the  article,  clearly  indicate  the  kind  or  class  of  acts 
which  come  within  its  prohibition.  They  are  clearly  such  acts  as  a 
2 


18  REVIEW    OF 

Bishop  only  can  perform ;  such  acts  as  legitimately  flow  from  no  other 
source  than  "  the  exercise  of  the  episcopal  office."  It  is  the  duty  of  a 
Bishop  to  preach,  but  it  is  in  no  sense  the  exercise  of  the  episcopal 
office ;  for  his  authority  to  preach  was  antecedent  to,  and  independent 
of,  his  consecration  as  Bishop.  Nay,  if  either  of  "the  three"  were 
in  New  Jersey,  and  invited  by  the  rector  of  any  one  of  its  parishes,  he 
might  lawfully  preach  in  such  parish,  not  only  without  the  consent, 
but  in  the  face  of  the  positive  prohibition  of  Bishop  Doane.  In  the 
diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and  in  some  others,  the  Bishop  is  also  rector 
of  a  parish,  thus  uniting  in  one  person  the  functions  of  distinct  offices. 
As  Bishop,  he  ordains  and  confirms :  as  Priest,  he  conducts  the  public 
services  of  the  Church,  preaches,  and  administers  the  sacraments. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  man  who  holds  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  may  be 
required  to  do  many  acts  which  are  not  episcopal.  Every  act  then, 
done  by  one  Bishop  within  the  diocese  of  another,  is  not  necessarily 
an  episcopal  act,  and  if  not  episcopal,  it  is  no  intrusion  into  the  diocese 
of  such  other.  If  the  letter  of  "the  three,"  signed  by  them  as  Bishops, 
be  within  the  prohibition  of  the  constitution,  what  shall  we  say  of  the 
protest,  appeal,  and  reply,  each  signed,  "  G.  W.  Doane,  Bishop  of 
New  Jersey,"  and  doubtless  sent  into  every  diocese  of  the  Church. 

"  The  three,"  and  the  Bishop  agree  in  their  construction  of  the 
canon  for  "the  trial  of  a  Bishop."  "It  appears  to  us,"  says  the 
letter,  "that  it  is  only  when  a  diocesan  convention  refuses  to  institute 
inquiry,  or  neglects  to  do  it  for  too  long  a  period,  or  performs  the  duty 
unfaithfully,  that  the  Bishops  can  be  reasonably  expected  to  interfere." 
And  the  protest  chimes  in  thus  :  "  That  the  right  of  any  three  Bishops 
to  present  the  Bishop  of  a  diocese,  is  limited  to  cases  Avhere  a  diocesan 
convention  for  some  cause  disregarded  its  duty  in  the  premises,  is 
manifest  from  the  whole  construction  of  the  canon." 

Though  like  Yorick,  "  a  vile  canonist,"  we  can  not  agree  in  this  con- 
struction. The  object  is  to  provide  two  independent  sources  from 
which  a  presentment  may  come  ;  we  mean  each  independent  of  the 
other,  as  to  time,  as  well  as  power — any  other  construction  will  produce 
endless  difficulties.  Who  is  to  judge  whether  the  diocesan  convention 
"  has  disregarded  its  duty"  in  the  one  case,  or  neglected  it  too  long, 
or  performed  it  unfaithfully  in  the  other.  But  if  we  are  wrong  and  the 
Bishops  right  in  their  construction  of  the  canon,  then  the  letter  of  "the 
three"  Avas  perfectly  proper;  that  they  might  know  that  the  necessary 
jpreliminary  investigation  had  been  made  or  refused  by  the  diocesan 


BISHOP    DOANE  S   TKOTEST   AND   APPEAL,  19 

convention.  If  the  authority  of  "the  three"  to  make  the  presentment 
demanded  by  the  four  complainants  from  New  Jersey,  depended  upon 
some  previous  proceedings  by  the  convention  of  New  Jersey  ;  then  it 
was  eminently  proper  that  they  should  inquire  of  official  persons,  that 
they  might  have  official  information,  that  those  proceedings  upon  which 
their  authority  to  present  depended,  had  been  had.  We  say  official 
information,  for  it  would  have  been  uncanonical  (under  their  construc- 
tion) to  have  based  the  presentment  upon  any  other  than  official 
action. 

In  either  construction  of  the  canon  we  think  the  letter  a  proper  one, 
proper  in  itself  and  proper  in  the  relations  existing  between  the  parties. 
If  the  Bishops  could  only  act  in  the  alternative  suggested,  then  it  was 
necessary  that  they  should  know  the  alternative  which  gave  them  juris- 
diction, had  happened.  If  it  were  in  their  discretion  to  act  in  the  first 
place,  or  to  wait  the  action  of  the  convention  of  New  Jersey,  then  it 
was  an  act  of  kindness  and  if  you  please  official  courtesy  to  Bishop 
Doane,  to  refer  to  his  own  decision  whether  he  would  have  the  inquiry 
by  his  own  convention,  or  a  public  trial  on  a  presentment  by  them.  If 
the  relations  between  "  the  three"  and  Bishop  Doane  had  been  other 
than  friendly,  as  we  should  infer  they  had  been,  from  the  tone  and 
spirit  pervading  this  pamphlet,  the  letter  denounced  was  more  strongly 
demanded. 

Bishop  Doane  complains  of  dictation,  etc.  Upon  this  point  every 
man  must  read  and  understand  the  letter  for  himself.  We  do  not  so 
read  or  understand  it.  They  tell  him,  as  frankness  required  they 
should  tell  him,  what  alone  would  relieve  them  from  the  "  distressing 
duty  of  making  a  presentment,"  viz  :  either  a  presentment  by  the  con- 
vention of  New  Jersey,  "  or  sufficient  reasons  assigned  Avhy  it  is  not 
merited."  Could  they  have  required  less?  All  dictation  imphes  a 
claim  of  superiority,  and  is,  therefore,  offensive  to  the  pride  of  poor 
human  nature  ;  but  we  apprehend  there  is  no  code  of  morals  which 
will  justify  an  omission  to  do  an  act  right  and  proper  in  itself,  upon 
the  ground  that  such  act  had  been  officiously  dictated  by  another. 

He  protests  against  their  action  as  "  unchristian."  "  The  blessed 
Paul  addressing  the  Galatians  writes,  '  Brethren,  if  any  man  is  over- 
taken in  a  fault,  ye  which  are  spiritual,  restore  such  an  one  in  the 
spirit  of  meekness ;  considering  thyself,  lest  thou  also  be  tempted.' 
He  had  learned  this  lesson  of  the  dear  and  gracious  Lord,  who  died  for 
us,  whose  rule  in  all  such  cases  is,    '  If  thy  brother  shall  trespass 


20  REVIEW    OF 

against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault,  between  thee  and  him  alone  ; 
if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will 
not  hear  thee,  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of 
two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  established ;  and  if  he  shall 
neglect  to  hear,  then  tell  it  unto  the  church,"  Such  upon  this  subject 
is  the  law  of  Christ ;  binding  on  all  Christians,  and  surely  not  the  least 
so  on  all  Christian  Bishops." 

We  reverently  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  and  our  gracious 
Lord,  and  are  willing  that  the  issues  between  us  shall  be  tried  by  the 
law  of  love  thus  established. 

We  affirm  that  "the  three,"  in  their  letter,  have  substantially  com- 
plied with  this  law  of  love,  and  that  Bishop  Doane  has  in  his  pamphlet, 
in  almost  every  page,  departed  from  it.  The  letter  informs  Bishop 
Doane  that  the  writers  had  been  told  that  he  had  trespassed  against 
his  brethren,  and  that  he  had  been  told  his  fault.  This  was  a  private 
letter,  and  would  have  remained  so,  but  for  its  publication  by  Bishop 
Doane  ;  it  was  therefore  telling  him  his  fault  alone.  If  he  had  heard 
them,  they  might  have  gained  their  brother.  They  add  in  the  very 
spirit  of  the  injunction,  if  he.  Bishop  Doane,  "shall  neglect  to  hear 
them,"  they  must  "tell  it  unto  the  church."  "  And  this  is  the  head 
and  front  of  their  ofFendins:." 

But  in  the  protest  "  the  three"  are  charged  as  the  trespassing 
brethren.  Has  Bishop  Doane  followed  the  rule  of  love  by  which  he 
would  judge  the  others  ?  Has  he  told  them  their  fault  between  him 
and  them  alone'!  Let  the  appeal  to  the  Bishops  of  our  own  church 
by  name,  "and  all  and  singular  the  Bishops  of  the  reformed  Catholic 
Church  in  all  the  world,"  answer.  Let  the  unauthorized  publication  of 
their  private  letter  answer, — let  the  indecent  publication  of  this  whole 
pamphlet,  in  anticipation  of  his  trial,  answer.  And  the  restoring  his 
brethren  "in  the  spirit  of  meekness" — will  any  friend  of  Bishop 
Doane  point  out  to  us  in  this  pamphlet  the  evidence  of  this  spirit  of 
meekness?  "Unchristian,  inhuman,  transcending  all  their  rights, — 
invading  another  diocese, —  dictating  to  another  Bishop, — triumviral 
papacy  of  Virginia,  Maine,  and  Ohio, —  our  popery  is  here, — papacy 
of  prejudice, — triumvirate  of  tj'rants  :  " — these  are  the  terms  which 
chaiacterize  the  "spirit  of  meekness"  as  understood  and  exhibited 
by  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey. 

He  protests  against  it  as  inhuman.  Because  "they  have  chosen  for 
it  such  a  time  as  this,  when  they  might  have  known,  had  they  in- 


BISHOP   DOANe's    protest   AND   APPEAL.  21 

quired,  that  the  undersigned,  by  the  assignment  of  all  his  property 
for  the  benefit  of  his  creditors, — having  previously  anticipated  all  his 
income,  except  his  salary  as  rector  of  St.  Mary's  church,  of  seven 
hundred  dollars,  which  is  chargeable  with  the  maintenance  of  an  aged 
mother  and  two  sisters, — had  made  himself  dependent  altogether  for 
his  living  and  his  family's,  upon  money  loaned  him  in  advance  of  in- 
come which  expires  with  life."  We  really  can  not  see  that  any  of 
these  particulars  make  the  letter  inhuman.  The  sufferings  from  pov- 
erty of  the  proprietor  of  Riverside,  is  rather  insinuated  than  affirmed. 
The  sufferings  from  this  source  will  not  create  much  sympathy  with 
those  who  from  railroad  or  river  have  seen  that  princely  residence,  or 
have  read  the  description  of  it  in  Downing.  The  Bishop's  hospitality 
is  greatly  overrated,  if  the  cellars  of  Riverside  do  not  still  furnish 
their  quota  to  the  good  cheer  of  the  table. 

With  Bishop  Doane's  domestic  affliction  we  shall  not  intermeddle, 
further  than  to  say,  that  it  is  gratuitously  paraded  in  the  pamphlet  by 
himself,  and  could  not  and  ought  not  to  have  had  any  influence  upon 
the  conduct  of  "the  three,"  in  writing  the  letter. 

We  conclude  our  review  of  Bishop  Doane's  protest,  with  the  asser- 
tion counter  to  his,  that  the  letter  is  neither  uncanonical  in  the  sense 
asserted  by  him,  nor  is  it  unchristian  or  inhuman  ;  and  we  refer  it  to 
those  who  are  disposed  to  look  into  the  matter,  to  decide  between  us. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  Appeal.  This 
Appeal  is  addressed  "  To  the  Right  Reverend  Philander  Chase,  Bishop 
of  the  diocese  of  IlHnois,"  and  to  the  other  Bishops  of  the  American 
Church,  with  the  exception  of  "the  three,"  "and  all  and  singular  the 
Bishops  of  the  Reformed  Catholic  Church  in  all  the  world."  The 
undersigned,  the  Right  Reverend  George  Washington  Doane,  D.  D. 
and  LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  New  Jersey, 

As  aggrieved  by  the  uncanonical,  unchristian,  and  inhuman  action  of  the  Right  Rev- 
erend William  Meade,  D.  D  ,  Bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Virginia  ;  The  Right  Reverend 
George  Burgess,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Maine,  and  the  Right  Reverend  Charles 
Petit  M'llvaine,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Ohio,  having  made,  as  before  recorded, 
and  to  be  proclaimed,  his  solemn  Protest,  now  makes,  in  the  presence  of  Almighty 
God,  and  in  the  name  of  the  holy  undivided  Trinity  to  his  brethren  in  the  Episcopate, 
beloved  in  the  Lord,  his  solemn  Appeal ;  as  one  in  whom  the  sacred  order  of  Bishops 
has  been  insulted,  the  first  principles  of  our  diocesan  Episcopacy,  as  handed  Aoyin  to  us 
from  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  disregarded;  the  sovereignty  of  dioceses  invaded;  and 
the  independence  of  diocesan  Conventions  laid  under  dictation. 

For  himself,  the  undersigned  asks  nothing  of  his  brethren,  in  the  Episcopate  above 


22  EEYIEW  OF 

appealed  to,  but  that  which  their  instincts  as  men,  their  obligations  as  Christians,  and 
their  responsibilities  as  Bishops,  will  freely  accord  to  him,  upon  the  simple  showing  ol 
his  case. 

The  Appeal,  which  he  now  makes,  is  for  "  the  house  of  God,  and  the  offices  thereof." 
One  member  can  not  suffer  and  all  the  members  not  suffer  with  it.  That  which  is  now 
attempted  in  New  Jersey,  may  be  pursued,  elsewhere.  If  the  mere  representation  of 
four  laymen,  without  confirmation  from  his  diocese,  and  even  without  examination  as 
to  its  value,  can  be  regarded,  as  the  sufficient  warrant,  for  three  Bishops,  to  present  a 
Bishop,  to  be  tried;  or,  what  is  infinitely  worse,  demand  his  obedience  and  submission 
to  their  will,  under  the  penalty  of  a  presentment,  what  Bishop  can  be  safe,  what  diocese 
secure  ?  "Proximus  Ucalegon  ardet."  The  undersigned  would  rouse  his  brethren,  all 
t  the  alarming  inroad,  which  is  now  attempted  on  the  peace,  the  freedom  and  the  order 
of  the  Church.  The  first  stride  of  the  three  Bishops,  not  addressed  in  this  Appeal,  is 
longer  than  the  Papacy  achieved,  in  centuries.  The  spirit  of  Popery  is  not  confined 
within  the  Vatican.  There  are  potential  Popes,  upon  whom  no  shadow  fi-om  the  seven 
hills  has  ever  fallen.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  has  noth- 
ing to  fear  from  the  thin  shade  of  Leo  or  of  Hildebrand,  that  lingers,  yet,  and  trembles, 
along  the  Tiber.  Our  Popery  is  here.  The  Papacy  of  Prejudice  is  that,  from  which  we 
have  to  lear.  The  fi-eedom,  peace  and  order  of  the  Church  are  threatened  now,  through 
a  triumvirate  of  tyrants.  And  the  undersigned  could  never  rest  upon  his  pillow,  nor  go 
in  hope  into  his  grave,  nor  look  for  mercy  at  that  day,  did  ho  not  call  upon  his  brethren 
in  the  Episcopate,  as  they  shall  stand  with  him  before  the  Judge,  to  give  an  account  of 
the  holy  and  beautiful  flocks,  which  they  received  from  Him,  as  purchased  with  His 
blood,  to  see  to  it,  upon  the  peril  of  their  consecration  vows,  that  this  high  handed  un- 
dertaking be  indignantly  frowned  down;  that,  so,  in  the  warning  words  of  the  third 
General  Council,  (held  at  Ephesus,  A.  D.,  431)  "  the  canons  of  the  Fathers  be  not  trans- 
gressed, nor  the  pride  of  worldly  power  be  introduced  under  the  appearance  of  a  sacred 
office,  nor  we,  by  little,  lose  that  liberty,  wherewith  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  de- 
liverer of  all  men,  has  endowed  us,  by  His  own  blood." 

The  undersigned,  simply  declaring,  as  under  the  immediate  eye  of  God,  to  his  Right 
Reverened  brethren,  addressed  as  above,  his  entire  and  perfect  integrity  and  innocence, 
as  to  all  and  singular,  the  charges  made  against  him  ;  assuring  them  of  the  sincerity  of 
his  fraternal  love  and  service ;  and  humbly  and  affectionately  soliciting  from  them  the 
continual  charity  of  their  prayers,  subscribes  himself,  in  all  fidelity,  their  brother  and 
servant,  in  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 

G.   W    D0.\NE, 

Bishop  of  New  Jersey. 

We  think  we  laave  already  shown,  (at  all  events  we  are  not  disposed 
to  make  any  further  efforts  to  show,)  "that  the  sacred  order  of 
Bishops"  has  not  been  insulted  in  Bishop  Doane — that  the  first  princi- 
ples of  our  diocesan  episcopacy,  as  handed  down  to  us  from  Jesus 
Christ,  have  not  been  disregarded — the  sovereignty  of  dioceses  has 
not  been  invaded — and  the  independence  of  diocesan  conventions  has 
not  been  laid  under  dictation. 

The  Bishop  is  exceedingly  moderate  iu  his  demands — he  asks  no- 


BISHOP    DOANe's    protest   AND    APPEAL.  23 

thing  of  his  brother  Bishops,  "but  that  which  their  instincts  as  men, 
their  obhgations  as  Christians,  and  their  responsibilities  as  Bishops  will 
freely  accord  to  him,  upon  the  simple  showing  of  his  case." 

Upon  first  reading  this  paragraph,  we  were  entirely  at  a  loss  to  con- 
jecture even,  what  the  "instincts"  of  the  Bishops  appealed  to  had  to  do 
with  the  charges  against  Bishop  Doane.  We  looked  into  Johnson  and 
Webster  ;  but  their  definitions  of  "  instinct,"  refused  to  throw  any  light 
upon  the  subject.  Then,  its  collocation  with  the  "obligations  of  Chris- 
tians," rather  increased  our  difficulties,  for  knowing  that  instinct  is  the 
exercise  of  certain  natural  powers,  we  thought  they  would  be  found  in 
opposition  to,  rather  than  in  co-operation  with,  "the  obligations  of  Chris- 
tians." "Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God" — the  obli- 
gations of  Christians  are  generally  in  conflict  with  the  instincts  of  men. 
We  say  generally,  because  there  are  some  instincts  which  do  not  neces- 
sarily lead  to  sin,  as  the  instinct  of  self  preservation,  for  instance — 
self  preservation,  that  must  be  it.  It  must  be  the  instinct  of  self  pre- 
servation in  his  brother  Bishops,  that  Bishop  Doane  appeals  to.  The 
next  paragraph  dissipated  all  doubt. 

"  One  member  can  not  sufl'er,  and  all  the  members  not  suffer  with 
it."  "That  which  is  now  attempted  in  Xew  Jersey  n\dij  he,  pursued 
elsewhere."  The  italics  are  ours.  Here  is  the  instinct  appealed  to — 
I,  one  of  the  members,  can  not  suffer,  AAdthout  subjecting  you,  the  other 
members,  to  similar  sufferings  for  the  same  cause ;  therefore,  I  appeal 
to  you  to  save  me  from  this  prosecution.  The  attempt  now  made  in 
New  Jersey  to  investigate  charges  of  fraud  preferred  against  me,  the 
Bishop,  in  a  like  event,  may  be  made  against  each  of  you,  and  I  appeal 
to  your  instincts  as  men,  by  the  pressure  of  a  common  danger,  to 
arrest  this  attempt.  A  more  degrading  appeal  never  was  addressed 
to  a  baser  feeling.  We  mistake  greatly  the  character  of  the  Bishops 
of  the  American  Church ;  and,  0,  how  should  we  mourn  over  the 
humiliation  of  that  Church,  if  it  be  otherwise.  We  say  we  mistake 
greatly  the  character  of  these  gentlemen,  if  they  can  be  induced,  by 
such  appeals,  to  believe  that  their  obligations  as  Christians  or  responsi- 
bilities as  Bishops,  do  not  require  them  to  "interpose  the  unsullied 
purity  of  their  lawn  to  save  the  Church  from  this  pollution."  The 
same  contemptible  effort  to  seduce  the  Bishops  from  the  discharge 
of  their  duty  in  this  matter,  is  continued  in  the  next  paragraph.  We 
do  not  enlarge  upon  it,  however,  as  the  paragraph  advances  a  pre- 
tension, which,  if  sustained,  will  be  utterly  subversive  of  the  discipline 


24  EEYIEW    OF 

of  the  church.  That  pretension  is,  ''that  there  is  no  sufficient  warrant 
for  the  three  Bishops  to  present  Bishop  Doane  to  be  tried  upon  the 
charges  presented  by  the  four  churchmen  from  New  Jersey,  because 
their  presentation  "is  without  confirmation  from  his  diocese,  and  even 
without  examination  of  its  value."  In  other  words,  if  a  Bishop  can 
only  manage  to  keep  his  own  convention  quiet,  he  is  safe  from  the 
discipline  of  the  Church. 

The  6th  Article  of  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  declares  "the 
mode  of  trying  Bishops,  shall  be  provided  by  the  general  convention. 
The  Court  appointed  for  that  purpose  shall  be  composed  of  Bishops 
only."  In  every  other  particular,  the  presentment,  trial,  judgment, 
and  execution  are  referred  to  the  discretion  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion, We  have  given,  on  page  8,  the  first  section  of  the  canon  "of  the 
trial  of  a  Bishop,"  which  authorizes  the  presentment.  The  meaning 
of  this  section  is  so  cleai*,  that  argument  may  obscure  but  can  not  elu- 
cidate it.  There  are  two  modes  of  making  a  presentment,  and  these 
two  modes  are  recognized  in  the  concluding  words  of  the  second 
section,  viz  :  "  wjjon  a  presentment  made  in  either  of  the  modes  pointed 
out  in  section  1,  of  this  canon,  the  course  of  proceeding  shall  be  as 
follows." 

A  presentment  by  a  diocesan  convention,  to  be  valid,  must  have  all 
the  formalities  required  by  the  canon,  and  if  any  of  these  formalities 
have  been  disregarded  in  making  the  presentment,  it  would  be  the  duty 
of  the  court,  the  fact  being  shown,  to  quash  the  presentment.  It  may 
possibly  be  necessary  that  the  journal  of  the  convention  accompany  the 
presentment,  to  show,  affirmatively,  that  the  requirements  of  the  canon 
have  been  substantially  complied  Avith.  But  where  the  presentment 
is  made  by  three  Bishops,  the  canon  does  not  require  any  of  these 
formalities,  nor  does  it  require  any  previous  steps  or  examination  on 
itheir  part  to  give  validity  to  the  presentment.  If  they  present  their 
.brother  through  hatred  or  malice,  or  without  sufficient  ^jrima/acie  evi- 
dence that  the  charges  are  true,  they  would  commit  a  great  sin ;  but  Ave 
apprehend  it  would  not  invalidate  the  presentment.  The  truth  of  such 
presentment  must  be  tried  by  the  court ;  if  it  be  for  any  of  the  causes 
specified  in  the  canon  ;  if  it  be  "in  writing,  specifying  the  offense  with 
reasonable  certainty,  as  to  time,  place  and  circumstances,"  and  if  it 
"be  signed  by  them  respectively  in  their  official  characters." 

"  If  the  mere  representation  of  four  laymen,  etc."  We  are  not  sure 
that  we  understand  the  precise  point  of  the  objection  contained  in  these 


BISHOP   DOANe's   PKOTEST   AND   APPEAL,  25 

words :  whether  it  be  to  their  number  or  character — whether  because 
they  are  laymen,  or  because  there  are  only  four.  In  either  case,  the 
objection  is  equally  futile.  If  to  the  number,  we  reply  in  the  words  of 
our  blessed  Lord,  "It  is  also  written  in  your  law,  that  the  testimony 
of  two  men  is  true."  If  to  their  character,  we  reply  in  the  words  of 
our  26th  article,  "It  appertaineth  to  the  discipline  of  the  church,  that 
inquiry  be  made  of  evil  ministers,  and  that  they  be  accused  ly  those 
that  have  knowledge  of  their  offenses.'"*' 

If  then,  such  presentment  shall  hereafter  be  made  by  "the  three," 
Bishop  Doane  will  find  that  he  will  be  put  to  his  plea,  notwithstanding 
all  his  protestations  of  innocence  ;  notwithstanding  his  protest,  appeal, 

AND    REPLY. 

Bishop  Doane,  too,  has  the  temerity,  while  seeking  to  avoid  by  all 
sorts  of  chicanery  and  subterfuge  an  impartial  trial,  to  remind  the 
Bishops  of  "their  consecration  vows."  We  give  the  "consecration 
vow"  made  by  Bishop  Doane  at  the  time  of  his  consecration.  "  In 
the  name  of  God,  Amen.  I  George  Washington  Doane,  chosen  Bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  New  Jersey,  do  promise  con- 
formity and  obedience  to  the  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship  of  the 


*The  following  extract  from  canon  6,  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in  381,  seems 
to  have  escaped  the  researches  of  Bishop  Doane  into  the  archives  of  primitive  anti- 
quity:— "Since  some  persons,  from  a  w'ish  to  confound  and  overthrow  the  good  order  of 
the  Church,  do  contentiously  and  falsely  frame  charges  against  orthodox  Bishops,  who 
have  the  administration  of  the  churches,  attempting  nothing  else,  but  to  stain  the  repu- 
tation of  the  Priests  and  excite  tumults  amongst  a  peaceable  people  ;  on  this  account  the 
Holy  Synod  of  Bishops  assembled  at  Constantinople,  has  determined  not  to  admit  accu- 
sers without  inquiry  ;  and  neither  to  allow  all  persons  to  make  accusation  against  the  rulers 
of  the  Church,  nor  to  exclude  all  from  doing  so.  If  then  any  person  brings  against  a  Bishop 
a  private  charge,  that  is,  relating  to  his  own  affairs,  as  that  he  has  been  defrauded  or 
suffered  any  other  thing  contrary  to  justice  from  him,  in  such  accusations  neither  the  person 
of  the  accuser,  nor  his  religion  is  to  be  inquired  into ;  for  it  is  by  all  means  necessary  that 
the  conscience  of  the  Bishop  should  he  clear,  and  that  he  who  complains  of  being  injured 
should  obtain  his  rights,  of  whatsoever  religion  he  may  be.  But  if  the  accusation  brought 
against  the  Bishop,  be  ecclesiastical,  then  it  is  necessary  that  the  persons  of  the  accusers 
should  be  examined,  that  in  the  first  place  heretics  may  not  be  allowed  to  make  charges 
concerning  ecclesiastical  affairs  against  orthodox  Bishops.'''' 

Of  THE  APOSTOLHAL  CANOxs  the  T-lth  declares,  "If  a?i!/  Bishop  has  been  accused  of 
any  thing,  by  men  worthy  of  credit,  he  must  be  summoned  by  the  Bishops;  and  if  he 
appears  and  confesses,  or  is  convicted,  a  suitable  punishment  must  be  inflicted  upon 
him." 

The  75th  apostolical  canon  declares,  "  An  heretic  is  not  to  be  received  as  witness 
against  a  Bishop,  neither  only  o;ie  believer,  for  'in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses 
every  word  shall  be  established.'  " 


2G  KEVIEW  OF 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  ;  so  help 
me  God,  through  Jesus  Christ." 

He  promises  obedience  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Church.  The  sixth 
Article  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  third  Canon  of  1844,  provide  for 
that  Discipline  ;  and  yet  he  impiously  appeals  to  the  Bishops  to  coun- 
tenance him  in  the  violation  of  this  most  solemn  promise.  He  would 
avoid  the  Discipline  to  which  he  has  sworn  to  submit ;  and  calls  upon 
those  who,  with  equal  solemnity,  have  sworn  to  enforce  that  Disci- 
phne,  to  connive  at  his  escape.  We  also  appeal  to  our  Right  Reverend 
Fathers  in  God,  that  they  "see  to  it,  upon  the  peril  of  their  consecration 
vows,"  as  they  regard  the  glory  of  their  God,  the  good  of  his  Church, 
the  safety,  honor,  and  welfare  of  his  people,  that  "this  high  handed 
undertaking,"  to  set  at  nought  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  "be 
indignantly  frowned  down" — that  the  canons  of  our  American  Church 
be  not  transgressed,  "nor  the  j^m^e  of  worldly  power  be  introduced 
under  the  appearance  of  a  sacred  office,  nor  we,  by  little,  lose  that 
liberty  wherewith  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  deliverer  of  all  men,  has 
endowed  us  by  his  blood." 

We  do  sincerely  hope,  that  this  Appeal,  although  addressed  to  "the 
Bishops  of  the  Reformed  Catholic  Church,  in  all  the  world,"  has  not 
been  sent  to  them.  We  can  imagine  nothing  more  calculated  to  bring 
our  American  Church  into  disrepute  with  all  intelligent  and  pious  men. 
Its  style  is  as  bad  as  style  can  be  ;  its  temper,  if  possible,  worse  than 
its  style  ;  and  its  reasoning  utterly  peurile  and  inconclusive.  If  Bishop 
Doane's  defense  before  the  court  shall  not  leave  upon  the  minds  of  his 
judges  a  stronger  impression  of  his  innocence,  than  his  pamphlet  has 
left  upon  the  mind  of  the  public,  let  him  tremble  for  the  result. 

We  have  intimated  our  intention  to  examine  the  claim  of  exemption 
from  further  prosecution  of  these  charges,  because  of  what  passed 
in  the  convention  of  New  Jersey  in  1849.  We  quote  from  the  ap- 
pendix : — 

It  was  now  half  past  six  o'clock,  P.  M.,  when  the  following  resolution  was  offered  by 
William  Halsted,  Esq.,  of  Trenton : 

Whereas,  a  Bishop  should  be  blameless,  and  should  have  a  good  report  of  those  that 
are  without,  lest  he  fall  into  reproach ;  and,  whereas,  public  rumor,  as  well  as  newspa- 
per publications,  have  made  serious  charges  against  our  Bishop,  impeaching  his  moral 
character,  tending  to  impair  his  usefulness,  and  to  bring  the  Church  of  which  he  is 
Bishop  into  disrepute — therefore, 

Sesolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed,  consisting  of  three  clergymen  and  three 
laymen,  who,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  make  such  inquiries  as  shall  satisfy  them  ol 


BISHOP   DOANe's   protest   AND   APPEAL.  27 

the  innocency  of  the  accused,  or  of  the  sufficiency  of  ground  for  presentment  and  trial ; 
and  that  they  do  make  report  to  this  Convention  at  its  present  session,  or  at  such  other 
time  as  this  Convention  shall  designate. 

An  earnest  debate  ensued  upon  tliis  resolution.  It  was  opposed  by  Mr.  A.  GifTord, 
Judge  Dayton  Ogden,  Charles  King,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Phillips,  and  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Ogilby, 
and  supported  by  the  mover,  Mr.  Halsted. 

By  the  two  first  named  gentlemen,  it  was  shown,  that  the  Convention  could  not 
lawfully  pass  the  resolution  presented  to  them — that  it  was  wholly  uncanonical  and 
unconstitutional ;  but  those  gentlemen,  and  all  the  others  who  spoke  in  opposition  to  the 
resolution,  unreservedly  declared,  that  if  charges  specifying  with  reasonable  precision,  the 
offenses  imputed  by  rumor,  or  any  offeiise  cognizable  by  the  Convention,  should  be  presented, 
they  would  oppose  no  obstacle'  to  the  receiving,  the  referring  and  investigation  of  such 
charges;  but  that  in  no  other  way  could  the  Convention  lawfully  reach  or  touch  the  subject. 

Mr.  King  spoke  with  great  earnestness  against  the  injustice  and  enormity  of  putting 
any  man  on  his  defense — and,  least  of  all,  a  man  such  as  Bishop  Doane — upon  vague 
rumor,  and  what  was  called  "newspaper  publications."  Though  freely  admitting  that 
if  these  or  any  charges  should  be  made  under  a  responsible  name,  and  not  by  anonymous 
slanderers — the  basest  at  once  and  most  cowardly  of  mankind — there  should,  and  would 
be  no  hesitation  in  raising  a  committee  of  investigation.  The  gentleman,  who  presented 
the  resolutions,  did  not  profess  to  know  any  thing  of  the  truth  of  these  rumors,  or  news- 
paper publications,  and  in  no  manner  makes  himself  responsible ;  and  this  should,  of 
itself,  determine  the  Convention  to  reject  the  resolution. 

In  no  part  of  his  pamphlet  does  Bishop  Doane  appear  to  so  much 
adA'antage  in  our  eyes,  as  in  the  commendation  of  such  a  man  as 
Charles  King.  In  screening  the  Bishop  from  the  investigation  de- 
manded, he  has  done  for  his  friend  Avhat  he  never  "would  have  done 
for  himself.  He  has  thus  shown  himself  to  be,  what  Junius  says  can 
not  be  stated  without  some  confusion  of  ideas,  "the  worst  enemy  of 
his  friend." 

"About  nine  o'clock  the  Bishop  rose  to  put  the  question  on  the 
passage  of  the  resolution."  "All  who  are  in  favor  of  this  resolution 
will  say  Aye — a  silence,  deep  as  death,  fell  upon  the  assembly." 
"All  opposed  to  this  resolution  Avill  say  No — then  went  up,  as  if  with 
one  breath  and  one  heart,  such  a  negative,  as  no  one  could  mistake 
the  import  of."  Certainly  there  can  be  no  mistaking  the  import  of  the 
vote — it  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  refusal  to  inquire  into  the 
truth  of  the  charges.  There  has  been  no  investigation.  The  Con- 
vention of  New  Jersey  has  never  passed  upon  the  charges.  The 
resolution  was  resisted  by  Mr.  A.  Gifford  and  Judge  Dayton  Ogden, 
because  it  did  not  specify,  with  reasonable  precision,  any  offense 
cognizable  by  the  convention,  by  Mr.  King,  because  it  was  founded  on 
vague  rumor,  and  what  was  called  "newspaper  publications." 
•  But   all  the   speakers   pledged  themselves,   (Bishop   Doane  being 


28  REVIEW. 

present,  and  not  dissenting,  Avhicli  makes  the  pledge  binding  upon 
him,)  that  if  charges,  specifying  with  reasonable  precision  any  offense 
cognizable  by  the  convention,  and  under  a  responsible  name,  should 
be  presented,  there  should  and  would  be  no  hesitation  in  raising  a 
committee  of  investigation."  The  only  action  of  the  convention  of 
New  Jersey  being  a  refusal  to  act,  what  is  the  value  of  the  estoppel, 
interposed  by  Bishop  Doane,  on  the  24th  page  of  his  pamphlet. 

"  The  undersigned  peremptorily  demands,  as  his  clear  right,  that  in  his  case  the  con- 
vention of  his  diocese  has  set  forth,  in  the  most  emphatic  way,  its  mind  and  will,  as  to 
his  presentment,  not  only  for  any  of  the  offenses  contemplated  by  Wdliam  Halsted,  in 
the  resolution  cited  above,  but  as  to  its  further  entertainment  of  them  ;  and  that  thus 
the  canonical  right  of  any  three  Bishops,  to  make  presentment  on  such  charges,  is  per- 
fectly estopped." 

The  objections  of  the  convention  of  1849  to  pass  the  resolution  have 
been  removed.  The  charges  have  assumed  a  responsible  shape  :  they 
are  attested  by  responsible  names  ;  the  only  conditions  upon  which  the 
speakers  declared  they  not  only  would,  but  should,  be  investigated. 

The  pledge  of  his  friends,  and  virtually  his  own,  Bishop  Doane 
utterly  disregards, —  "No  such  convention  will  be  called  by  him." 

This  determination  leaves  the  three  no  alternative.  They  mus* 
make  a  presentment.  The  court  must  assemble.  The  trial  must 
be  had. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  purpose  to  maintain  the  guilt  of  Bishop  Doane. 
Our  only  object  has  been  to  vindicate  the  conduct  of  "the  three"  in 
their  bearing  towards  Bishop  Doane.  Whether  Ave  have  succeeded  in 
doing  this,  is  referred  to  the  Church,  by 

AN   OHIO  LAYMAN. 


^ — «a^ 


#» 


i^i 


PHOTOMOUNT    ] 
PAMPHLET  BINDER   | 

Manu/aclured  by         ' 
©AYLORD  BROS.  Inc.  i 

Syracuse,  N.  Y.  ' 

Slocltton,  Calif.  , 


BX5960 .D63R46 

Review  of  The  protest  and  appeal  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


